NORMA

International Journal for Masculinity Studies

ISSN: 1890-2138 (Print) 1890-2146 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rnor20

The differentiation of masculinity as a challenge

for the concept of hegemonic masculinity

Anna Buschmeyer & Diana Lengersdorf

To cite this article: Anna Buschmeyer & Diana Lengersdorf (2016): The differentiation of
masculinity as a challenge for the concept of hegemonic masculinity, NORMA

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/18902138.2016.1217672

Published online: 12 Aug 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 18

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rnor20

Download by: [University of Nottingham] Date: 02 September 2016, At: 11:52

NORMA: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR MASCULINITY STUDIES, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/18902138.2016.1217672

The differentiation of masculinity as a challenge for the

concept of hegemonic masculinity
Anna Buschmeyera and Diana Lengersdorfb
a
Arbeitsstelle Gender, Deutsches Jugendinstitut (DJI), München, Germany; bJuniorprofessur Geschlecht,
Technik und Organisation, Universität zu Köln, Cologne, Germany

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

‘Hegemonic masculinity’ is applied worldwide as the predominant Received 1 December 2015
concept in research on men and masculinities. The theoretical and Accepted 8 July 2016
empirical origins of the term can be traced back to the work of
KEYWORDS
Raewyn Connell. Connell suggests that gender is a dynamic Hegemonic masculinity;
process and that gender orders emerge in and through everyday doing gender; involved
practices and relations. Even though the concept is well fatherhood; alternative
established in men and masculinity studies, explanations of the masculinity
hierarchical relations between forms of masculinities still needs to
be reconfigured. This includes questions about the relation
between hegemonic forms of masculinity and non-hegemonic
masculinity formations as well as about the relation between
hegemonic masculinities, masculinity formations that support and
strengthen hegemonic masculinity and those that resist and
challenge hegemonic masculinity. We propose that the current
focus on a vertical structuring of forms of masculinity with
hegemonic masculinity at the top, inflates the hierarchical super-
and subordination of forms of masculinity. Based on two empirical
studies we explore to what extent the transformation of
hegemonic masculinity is challenged by the appearance of new
legitimate forms of masculinity, which emphasises the ever-
changing negotiability of masculinity and a horizontal logic of
masculinities.

Introduction
‘Hegemonic masculinity’ is applied worldwide as the predominant concept in research on
men and masculinities. The theoretical and empirical origins of the term can be traced
back to the work of Raewyn Connell. Key to her concept is the conceptualisation of mas-
culinity and femininity as ‘inherently relational concepts, which have meaning in relation
to each other, as a social demarcation and a cultural opposition’ (Connell, 2005, p. 43).
Therefore, masculinity or femininity are not unified entities or personality traits,
instead Connell exposes that gender is a dynamic process and that gender orders
emerge in and through every day practices and relations. These practices exist on three
levels: production relations, relations of cathexis and power relations (Connell, 2005,
p. 74). Production relations construct masculinities and femininities through a gendered
division of labour. Relations of cathexis determine legitimate and illegitimate forms of

CONTACT Anna Buschmeyer Buschmeyer@dji.de

© 2016 The Nordic Association for Research on Men and Masculinities
2 A. BUSCHMEYER AND D. LENGERSDORF

desire (Connell, 2005, p. 74; Scholz, 2004, p. 39). Power relations in gender orders privilege
men over women, establishing a power structure that is regulated less through force or
coercion but rather through a general social acceptance – by those in power as well as
by those subordinated to them – of these unequal relations. This guarantees the complete
subordination of all forms of femininity (Connell, 1987, p. 187) and makes it possible for
men to take part in the ‘patriarchal dividend’ (Connell, 2005, p. 79).
In her early pioneering work on gender and power, Raewyn Connell addressed the fun-
damental question of what has to change so that heterosexual men no longer pursue the
advantages they are promised by a patriarchal social order (Connell, 1987, p. xiii); a ques-
tion that remains relevant today, as discussions around the lack of women in executive
positions or around the global gender pay gap reveal. While these debates have existed
since the 1980s, they initially revolved around the ‘empowerment’ of women. Today
‘equality-problems’ are seen to originate from dominant forms of masculinity and political
initiatives like the introduction of ‘partner months’ in parental leave,1 which predomi-
nantly address fathers, or the German campaign ‘More men in day care’,2 address them
from this angle. At the same time, discourses around the alleged ‘crisis of the masculinity’
are emerging, which are ascribed to things like the increasing precarity of the male-domi-
nated labour market or the underperformance of boys in the education system.
Masculinity no longer seems to be a guarantee for privileged access to social resources.
On the contrary, men are finding themselves confronted with occupational interruptions,
insecure career paths and uncertain futures (Lengersdorf & Meuser, 2010). Patriarchal
advantages for men no longer surface unequivocally but are rather becoming less and
less apparent. Yet, the ‘patriarchal dividend’ is key to Connell’s concept of hegemonic mas-
culinity, which conceptualises masculinity not as a fixed, natural essence but rather as a
social phenomenon that encapsulates a temporal, spatial and context-specific assemblage
of various versions of masculinity. Different masculinities do not circulate freely within
this framework, but rather exist in hierarchical relations; they comprise a political order
(Carrigan, Connell & Lee, 1985, p. 552). This order is stabilised through hegemony and
legitimised through the ongoing production and reproduction of a status quo.
Even though these key concepts are well established in men and masculinity studies,
explanations of the hierarchical relations between forms of masculinities still need to be
refined, in particular against the background that patriarchal logics of ordering are becom-
ing more diffuse, but at the same time are not losing their structural strength.
This includes questions around the relation between hegemonic forms of masculinity
and non-hegemonic masculinity formations as well as around the relation between hege-
monic masculinities, masculinity formations that support and strengthen hegemonic mas-
culinity and those that resist and challenge hegemonic masculinity (commonly cited on
these issues: Beasley, 2008; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Demetriou, 2001; Hearn,
2004; Wetherell & Edley, 1999; Whitehead, 1999). In addition, empirically observable
transformations of or integration of ‘new elements’ into hegemonic masculinity further
challenge the concept of hegemonic masculinity as it stands.3 As early as 1998, Connell
herself described the emergence of the transnational business masculinity as a new for-
mation of masculinity. Other studies establish ‘alternative’, ‘integrative’ masculinity con-
structs or even a ‘non-masculinity’, which appear alongside a hegemonic masculinity.
Hence, there are grave challenges for the concept of hegemonic masculinity which
operate predominantly on three levels: diagnostic challenges to do with changing societal
 NORMA: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR MASCULINITY STUDIES 3

circumstances, particularly in terms of the ‘patriarchal dividend’, conceptual challenges,

which emanate from underdeveloped theoretical approaches, and finally, empirically
based challenges, which surface in the transformation of hegemonic masculinity in empiri-
cal studies.
Our paper addresses these challenges, focussing on the conceptual and empirical levels.
It is an empirically based theory work we are interested in, while understanding the
concept of hegemonic masculinity as a sensitising concept (Blumer, 1969) to inspire the
analytical interpretations. First, we shall discuss the concept of hegemonic masculinity
in terms of the hierarchical order of masculinities in relation to one another in order to
consider a theoretical development of the concept. Based on two empirical studies we con-
ducted we shall explore to what extent the transformation of hegemonic masculinity is
challenged by the appearance of new legitimate forms of masculinity. The two studies
on the everyday processes of constructing and practicing masculinity in child-care
centres and in the context of ‘involved fatherhood’ intersect with the three concepts
Connell identified as central to gender orders: relations of cathexis (between kindergar-
ten-teacher4 and child/between parents), production relations (gendered division of
labour in the professional sphere of the child-care centre/in the family sphere) and
power relations (male invasion into jobs associated with women/into the supposedly
female-dominated domestic sphere). We propose that the current focus on a vertical struc-
turing of forms of masculinity with hegemonic masculinity at the top, which can be
detected in conceptual as well as empirical studies on men and masculinity, inflates the
hierarchical super- and subordination of forms of masculinity. We suggest a further devel-
opment of the concept by using a horizontal logic of masculinities, which emphasises the
ever-changing negotiability of masculinity to account for current social and cultural
transformations.
This shift in perspective from a vertical to a horizontal structuring simultaneously has
consequences for the question of the transformation of hegemonic masculinity. We do not
argue for a complete break from the concept of hegemonic masculinity, neither in terms of
an upheaval of the existing hegemonic masculinity through the transformation of subor-
dinate masculinities, nor through the transformation of hegemonic masculinity, which is
then handed down to subordinate masculinities. Rather, we suggest that what we are
seeing is the integration of new elements into ‘old’ hegemonic formations, made possible
through processes of negotiation that take place on a horizontal plane. This further stabil-
ises the dominance of (reconfigured) hegemonic masculinity and the resulting male hege-
mony. Our line of thinking builds substantially on Meuser’s (2007) location of such
negotiation processes in ‘serious games of competition’, in the Bourdieusian sense.

Masculinity as hierarchical order: Connell’s concept of hegemonic

masculinity
Connell applies Antonio Gramsci’s term hegemony in order to conceptualise power
relations among men. For Gramsci, hegemony is complementary to dominance. Only
when both practices come together – dominance by exerting power over antagonistic
groups and then hegemony by morally and intellectually leading allied groups – can the
supremacy of one group manifest itself (Gramsci, 1991, p. 101). Based on this premise,
Connell establishes that the stability of a patriarchal social order is not merely reliant
4 A. BUSCHMEYER AND D. LENGERSDORF

on men dominating women, but moreover on the dominance of a particular form of mas-
culinity within and vis-à-vis various other masculine identity formations (Connell, 1987,
p. 183). Connell thus describes a hierarchical order of masculinities. A particular for-
mation of masculinity occupies the top of this hierarchy, imposing its ‘order of play’ on
all other forms of masculinity and femininity; hegemonic masculinity as a particular mani-
festation of masculinity (see Carrigan, Connell, & Lee, 1996 [1985], p. 56). Recognised as
the ideal execution of masculinity, this hegemonic masculinity serves as a normative
model, prescribing how men have to position themselves in relation to one another. In
‘Masculinities’ she defines (and that is what we take as a starting point):
At any given time, one form of masculinity rather than others is culturally exalted. Hegemo-
nic masculinity can be defined as the configuration of gender practice which embodies the
currently accepted answer to the problem of the legitimacy of patriarchy, which guarantees
(or is taken to guarantee) the dominant position of men and the subordination of women.
(Connell, 2005, p. 77)

This definition makes clear how strongly Connell understands hegemonic masculinity as
interwoven with aspects of power, rather than searching for certain types of masculinity.
Furthermore, she recognised that hegemonic masculinity has a dimension of time, and is
changing with the course of history. Other forms of masculinity are constituted and only
exist in relation to the hegemonic masculinity ideal. The term ‘hegemonic masculinity’
thus on one hand denotes a particular type of masculinity, yet moreover constitutes a
means of accounting for a whole microstructure of gender relations.
The ordering capacity of hegemonic masculinity is particularly apparent when it comes
to forms of masculinity that are subordinated to hegemonic (and all other legitimate forms
of) masculinity. Connell points to homosexual masculinity as an example of a subordi-
nated masculinity. Subordinated masculinities do not conform to what is accepted as
‘masculine’ in a given social or contextual setting; they do not satisfy the expectations
of acceptable masculine behaviour and of the idea of what constitutes a (typically) mascu-
line person. They assume the position of ‘outsider’ in the hierarchical gender order.
Connell touches but does not elaborate on a third form of masculinity: complicit mascu-
linity. This constitutes masculinities, which (even unintentionally) strive for fulfilling the
expectations of hegemonic masculinity yet for various reasons do not manage to satisfy
them. Nevertheless, by striving for hegemonic masculinity they (again: unintentionally)
support and strengthen the dominance of the group. Complicit masculinity, like hegemo-
nic masculinity, benefits from the ‘patriarchal dividend’ – the advantage of being male in a
patriarchal society, while at the same time being partially dominated by it (see Connell,
2005, p. 79). Connell insinuates (despite never stating explicitly) that complicit masculi-
nity represents a very unstable form of masculinity, which constantly oscillates between
sub- and superordination. Men who embody this type of masculinity formation may be
homosexual or heterosexual, breadwinners or house husbands, ‘black’ or ‘white’ men,
etc. They classify as complicit alone through their supportive function in relation to hege-
monic masculinity. They become ‘accomplices’ of the system (Connell, 2006, p. 100).
Evidently, complicit masculinity can be found in subordinate as well as marginalised mas-
culinities (see below) making it a transverse category.5 This form of masculinity is particu-
larly interesting for our line of argument as it alludes to a way of ordering masculinities on
a horizontal plane. Yet, at the same time the category as Connell purports it, is
 NORMA: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR MASCULINITY STUDIES 5

unsatisfactory, as it remains open for both: active support in terms of intentional actions,
and an intentional or unintentional attitude towards hegemonic masculinity – which you
cannot get away from. Furthermore, there is no option of a reluctant masculinity in Con-
nell’s conceptualisation, potentially making all masculinities complicit in one way or
another.
Connell’s broad sketch of marginalised masculinity, which she supports with empirical
examples and classifies into loose social categories like social class or excluded ethnic min-
orities, provides an even more dissatisfying analytical vantage point. Her vague classifi-
cation reveals little about the attitudes of these marginalised men towards hegemonic
masculinity, while this attitude is central for assigning complicit masculinity.6
In summary, Connell conceptualises the relation between different forms of masculi-
nity as a hierarchically structured political order. This structure is stabilised and legiti-
mised through hegemonic processes, which endorse one particular form of masculinity
and to which all other forms of masculinity want and have to orientate themselves.
Questions around how these hegemonic processes play out as well as how they have
changed through history – questions Connell claims are central to her concept –
remain unanswered. Connell thus provides a political, that is, negotiable, hierarchical
system of sub- and superordination, which is mirrored in the designation of its binary
categories – hegemonic masculinity versus subordinated masculinity. Connell’s ‘other’
categories of complicit and marginalised masculinity do not seem to fit into the hierarch-
ical order she proposes and remain imprecise and underdeveloped. Meuser and Scholz
note that the widespread application of the concept stands in strange contrast to the inde-
finiteness of its terminology (2005, p. 211).7

Critical analysis and conceptual development

In German-language research on men and masculinities, Michael Meuser and Sylka
Scholz have contributed significantly to the critical examination and development of Con-
nell’s model (Meuser, 2006b, 2010, p. 327; Meuser & Scholz, 2005; Scholz, 2012). They
emphasise that there cannot be only one hegemonic masculinity in highly differentiated
societies with more than one centre of power. In order for a form of masculinity to
become hegemonic it has to be accepted outside of its own milieu (see Meuser &
Scholz, 2005, p. 216/217). Accordingly, hegemonic masculinity is not simply one type
of masculinity, which all men strive to achieve. Meuser and Scholz purport that we
either need to consider many different (milieu-specific) forms of hegemonic masculinity,
or evade the concept of one type of masculinity altogether, favouring an understanding of
masculinity as a generative concept that serves as a Leitmotif for different masculinities. In
this way they probe whether masculinity is one of many hierarchical principles, which
together determine social order (Meuser & Scholz, 2005, p. 219).
Meuser and Scholz render hegemonic masculinity a useful concept for theorising power
relations but do not see it fit for application in empirical studies on men (also: Hearn,
2004). Meuser suggests that it should be applied to account for relations between
groups of men but also between women and men and the interconnections between
these relations (2006b).8 Meuser thus advocates differentiating between male hegemony
(men as a hegemonic group) and hegemonic masculinity (a form of masculinity that dom-
inates women in a hierarchical fashion). In order to do so, Meuser turns back to Gramsci
6 A. BUSCHMEYER AND D. LENGERSDORF

and thus refines Connell’s concept. The Gramscian differentiation between intellectual
and moral leadership versus force and coercion as forms of power can be translated
into the differentiation between complicit and subordinated masculinities; while hegemo-
nic masculinity acts as a coercive form of power for subordinated masculinities, it is first
and foremost a guiding principle for complicit masculinity, making it the generative prin-
ciple or Leitmotif Meuser purports (see Gramsci, 1991, p. 101; cited in Meuser, 2010,
p. 328). Yet we can also use this principle to illustrate power relations between men
and women; women’s acceptance of male hegemony on one hand reproduces the hier-
archical relations between the two genders. On the other hand the male expression of
dominance over women also legitimates the (hegemonic) masculinity of these men on a
homosocial level among their male cohort (see Lengersdorf & Meuser, 2016, p. 29).
Meuser criticises Connell for not making these differentiations clear enough, mainly
because she seeks to provide exemplars for a whole range of masculinities in her empirical
work (Meuser, 2006b, p. 168). To rectify this problem, Meuser looks to Bourdieu and
specifically his concept of ‘serious games of competition’, which marks the social
aspects of such acts of recognition. These serious games may well be games in the
literal sense, such as lunchtime football games (Lengersdorf, 2011), but they are primarily
power games, construed as ‘serious’ and meaningful, such as determining one’s own suc-
cessor at work or negotiating a pay rise. Meuser argues that Bourdieu eliminates two inter-
connected aspects: the competitive structure of masculinity and the homosocial nature of
the social fields (Meuser, 2006a, p. 163). Hence, the players of serious games face one
another as ‘partner-adversaries’ (Bourdieu, 2001, p. 45).9 The game unites men in compe-
tition – at least within its boundaries – even where they seem to be playing against one
another. It is those who are not permitted to play, who are excluded. Thus, these games
demonstrate togetherness rather than competition.
It is not just theoretical debates on men and masculinity that challenge the concept of
hegemonic masculinity. A whole raft of empirical studies draws attention to phenomena
that point to the emergence of ‘new’ forms of hegemonic masculinity. Already in 1998,
Connell described the emergence of a new formation of masculinity, which she termed
transnational business masculinity. A 2005 study with James Wood (Connell & Wood,
2005), in which they interviewed Australian managers, confirmed that a transnational
business masculinity is emerging as the new hegemonic masculinity. In a German
context, Scholz (2009) similarly found that this ‘new’ masculinity is becoming more
and more apparent. According to Scholz (with Connell & Wood, 2005) this masculinity
is characterised by a limited technical rationality, heightened egocentrism, abated feelings
of loyalty to the own company, a deteriorating sense of responsibility except when it comes
to maintaining an image and a more and more liberal sexual attitude, tending towards
purchasable relationships with women (Scholz, 2009, p. 87). Yet, neither Connell (2010)
nor Scholz (2012) provides a clear typology of this new type of masculinity in their
recent work. This, too, supports the argument that hegemonic masculinity is not simply
a particular type that can be replaced with another but rather encapsulates a generative
principle.
Other studies that focus on non-hegemonic masculinities support this concept. In a
two-year ethnographic study of an American fraternity, Anderson develops the concept
of an inclusive masculinity which ‘[ … ] is thought to be predicated in the social inclusion
of those traditionally marginalized by hegemonic masculinity’ (2008, p. 606). Anderson –
 NORMA: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR MASCULINITY STUDIES 7

who is in particular interested in understanding the power of homophobia and emotion-

ality in constructing masculinities – observes that masculinity is actively negotiated in the
fraternity and that neither addressing the topic of masculinity, nor publicly displaying
feminised actions, lead to social stigmatisation (see Anderson, 2008, pp. 615, 617;
2011). Similarly, Johansson and Ottemo (2013; and Johansson, 2011a/2011b) in a study
on ‘active’ or ‘new’ fathers observe a change from a ‘hardcore hegemonic masculinity’
to a softer, more gender-sensitive form of hegemonic masculinity. Furthermore, Eger,
Hagen, Powalla, and Trinkaus (2010) suggest that hegemonic masculinity can – in specific
circumstances – loose its effectiveness as a generative principle or Leitmotif. In their study
of men from the rural area of Brandenburg, Germany, who, for various reasons, have bad
employment prospects and are well aware of their lacking future trajectory, Eger et al.
observe that the gap this leaves does not translate into expectations of hegemonic mascu-
linity (2010, p. 7). This empty space both threatens the legitimation and construction of
hegemonic masculinity, and surpasses or rather dissolves the boundaries of masculine
order. Eger et al. (2010, p. 16) describe such social occurrences as practices of non-
masculinity.
Patterns of masculinity beyond the ones considered hegemonic in the past are becom-
ing conceivable and legitimate and non-masculinity is entering the realm of possibility. It
is difficult to integrate these masculinities into a vertically ordered hierarchy. Further, they
are less tied to a patriarchal logic that subordinates femininity. Rather, elements of femi-
ninity are being incorporated into patterns of masculinity without being transformed into
masculine traits. In the case of Eger et al.’s (2010) proposed concept of non-masculinity,
the concept of a gender order itself becomes obsolete.
One way to interpret this shift may be to consider that the hold of the patriarchal divi-
dend, and with it the foundation of hegemonic masculinity, are weakening. Yet, we
propose the contrary; the horizontal differentiation of patterns of masculinity, partly
due to the incorporation of aspects of patterns of femininity, in fact establishes a generative
principle in response to a weakening demand for a hierarchical gender order. We empha-
sise here that this response works to secure the antagonistic relations between ‘masculine’
and ‘feminine’. There is no crumbling of or break from hegemonic masculinity; it retains
its power and effectiveness in full force. Rather, the incorporation of elements associated
with femininity into the ‘masculine project’ makes masculinity flexible. This flexibility is
necessary for the foundation of hegemony; the establishment and fortification of hege-
mony depend on the possibility for minority and contradictory differentiations, interests
and subjectivities to exist (Laclau & Mouffe, 2012). Overly strict social ordering impedes
hegemonising processes, which convert the extraordinary into the ordinary (Reckwitz,
2008, p. 75).
We shall now use two empirical examples to illustrate our theoretical deliberations. The
first draws on a study of men who work as kindergarten-teachers; the second emerges out
of our research on so-called active fatherhood. Both examples reveal how the consolida-
tion of traditional and readjusted patterns of masculinity permits a flexible reaction to
changes in the gender order, being reassuring for men. Our examples are also telling as
they focus on two social institutions, which are traditionally associated with women
and where women are generally granted higher authority and competence. It is women
who lay down the standards for good work, legitimate guardianship and loving care, as
the realm of the family and professional care/education of children are competencies
8 A. BUSCHMEYER AND D. LENGERSDORF

that are associated with women.10 It will become evident that masculinity is negotiated in
the context of the legitimate authority of and in interaction with women.

An example of alternative masculinity: men as kindergarten-teachers

Men who choose to work in child-care centres challenge traditional gender role expec-
tations. They enter a professional field that has been dominated by women since it
emerged and has always been considered a typical ‘women’s job’. In 2014, 3.7% of edu-
cational staff in child-care centres in Germany were men (www.koordination-maennerin-
kitas.den). In numbers this means that more than 17,000 men in Germany break with
expectations of gendered career choices. They are often made to feel like they have to
provide an explanation for why they chose this career path. Especially younger men
seem to experience difficulties with justifying their career choice among their peers. Not
surprisingly, men who decide to work in child-care commonly do so biographically
later in life (see Krabel & Stuve, 2006), often because they are dissatisfied with their
current jobs or are forced to change careers due to illness or unemployment. In these
cases, memories of their time in civil service11 or voluntary work from younger years com-
monly instigate their reorientation into the child-care sector.
But even then, kindergarten-teachers are often asked why they chose this particular
career path. Our own qualitative study (Buschmeyer, 2013a)12 revealed a range of
answers to this question. On one hand there are teachers who enjoy being seen as
‘manly’ in their field. In a female-dominated vocational field, masculinity can be a
valued ‘quality’. Tasks associated with masculine abilities, such as taking on leadership
roles or administrative/technical duties, are delegated to men in the interplay with
other interaction partners. The men gain recognition and approval from their female col-
leagues in their professional field as well as in homosocial contexts outside of work. Other
professional demands to do with the care of children take a backseat and are dismissed as
‘female’ tasks. Interviews with Johannes Müller13 clearly demonstrate this approach. At 16
years of age Johannes Müller decided to pursue a career in the child-care profession. In the
final year of his vocational training he was put in charge of his own group. As this was not
common practice at his young age/state of his training he had to obtain a special permit,
which he claims he managed to secure because of his good connection to the (male) direc-
tor of his training centre and the trust the director put in him. Nevertheless, the fact that
Johannes took on the leadership role led to conflicts with his female colleagues, as can be
seen from the following excerpt:
I did have to assert myself among my female colleagues, because I was only an intern at the time
and within a year I achieved the status of teacher. Then they’d say: ‘You’re just an intern’. That
would make me angry and I’d say that I want to discuss the matter. I’d say: ‘Well you might
have 20 years of experience on the job, or say ten years or whatever, but I want you to take
me seriously as a colleague, yeah? I take you seriously too, don’t I?’ [ … ] There certainly
were conversations between a female teacher and myself, hefty conversations where I had to
make a stand. That’s probably easier as a man; as a person you’re tall and strong or even
just able to stand tall and the woman is rather small and delicate, well maybe not in every kin-
dergarten, but as a man you can stand and deliver your arguments. (Johannes Müller, B_66)
 NORMA: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR MASCULINITY STUDIES 9

Evidently, Johannes Müller uses a gender construct as the backdrop to argue for the rec-
ognition of his leadership role despite being an intern. He frames the discussion around
the lack of his professional experience with an account of how he solved the conflict: it
seems to be easier for him as a man because he feels superior based on his physicality.
This matches his understanding of himself and the children in his care; according to
Johannes Müller there is a strong naturalised gender order, according to which tasks
are designated and labour is divided. In his opinion there are further aspects that are
important to the distribution of leadership positions:
You want to leave a mark on the kindergarten you work at. I’ve left a mark on a few kinder-
gartens in the past. I always want to develop myself and pass on my style. (Johannes Müller_B
68)

Johannes Müller demonstrates that power is an important aspect of his conduct. He wants
to have influence over the procedures in his facility and seeks to pass on his notion of good
pedagogy. The second reason for aiming at a leading position Johannes Müller proposes is
financial. He intends to have a family and ideally would like his future wife to be able to
stay at home with their (anticipated) children.
This example demonstrates that even within a field like childcare, where you might
expect presence of a more fluid understanding of masculinity beyond traditional hegemo-
nic norms, hegemonic masculinity still functions as a benchmark. Because kindergarten-
teachers do not conform to hegemonic masculinity based on the occupation they have
chosen, they fit into Connell’s category of complicit masculinity. They emphasise their
awareness of hegemonic expectations because men who choose to work as carers poten-
tially run the risk of not being accepted as ‘real men’, particularly by other men. Yet this
recognition from other men is crucial for the construction of masculinity.
However, other male teachers demonstrate different approaches. These are particularly
prevalent in men who chose the job precisely because they do not adhere to the hegemonic
ideal of masculinity. They aspire to embody an alternative form of masculinity and act as
role models for ‘alternative masculinity’.14 This alternative masculinity is particularly
evident in their day-to-day practices. While proponents of complicit masculinity described
distancing themselves from care-taking activities and portrayed physical contact to chil-
dren as problematic and better avoided, proponents of alternative masculinity see these
care-giving tasks as part and parcel of their job. Daniel Albers for instance recounts
that he changes the children for their afternoon nap, changes their diapers and stays
around to provide emotional support:
And then there are kids who can put themselves to sleep and other kids whom you have to
physically lie next to and even hug them so they fall asleep. It varies. (Daniel Albers_MB 154)

In the interview Daniel Albers reveals that to him these moments are relaxing and offer a
welcome break on a busy day. Providing care and closeness are a distinct part of his
professional duties. He thus describes conduct that does not comply with complicit mas-
culinity or which several other men seek to distance themselves from, at least in the
interviews.
These brief examples demonstrate that even within one vocational field, a range of
different masculinities can exist, which on one hand appropriate traits associated with
the feminine, yet equally always look to standards of hegemonic masculinity to govern
10 A. BUSCHMEYER AND D. LENGERSDORF

their conduct. References may be supportive (complicit) or dismissive (alternative) yet

hegemonic masculinity persists as a common reference point.
The alternative masculinity we describe does not feature in Connell’s framework.
Therefore, her theory of hegemonic masculinity is too narrow. It is necessary to
develop Connell’s framework in order to account for masculinities that actively distance
themselves from hegemonic expectations, yet at the same time use hegemonic masculinity
as the antithesis to their own stance. In practice this means that changing diapers, taking
care of children and establishing physical contact can be a means of assembling and assert-
ing masculinity in a female-dominated professional field. It is just a different or alternative
way of ‘doing’ masculinity.15

An example for reconfigured masculinity: ‘involved’ fathers

While the call for more men to enter child-care vocations in order to provide positive role
models for boys in education is prevalent, a further central discourse to do with the trans-
formation of masculinity revolves around the ‘new father’. Examples abound in the media.
The German weekly magazine Der Spiegel,16 for example, labels an image of two young
men pushing prams: ‘Young fathers with offspring. A new generation of men, who care
for their child as much as – if not more than – for their career’ (2009, own translation).
While the private domain of the family used to be associated with women and the
public domain of labour belonged to men, these distinctions no longer hold – not just
because women are increasingly entering the workforce but also due to men’s demands
for greater involvement in family life. This blurring of boundaries challenges the tra-
ditional model of the family headed by the male breadwinner. The provider-role has
always been a key reference point for the construction of masculinity (see Lengersdorf
& Meuser, 2010). As this reference point vanishes, the question of how men stabilise
their masculinity arises, just as it does for men who enter the vocation of kindergarten-tea-
chers. This is further reinforced by the fact that fathers have to negotiate their enhanced
involvement in the family with their partners (Lengersdorf & Meuser, 2016). Such nego-
tiation processes can be riddled with conflict, as we shall demonstrate through two cases
from a project on new forms of fatherhood.17 The question of how parents put this in
practice is a main focus of the study about the ambivalences of a stronger involvement
by fathers in family life. Different levels of being actively involved in occupational work
– from full-time employment, reduced working hours down to the use of parental leave
– are of particular interest for us. Couples from all areas of Germany with children in
their baby, infant or primary school ages were interviewed. The couples were selected
according to theoretical sampling. Couple interviews were conducted as a qualitative
method of data collection that combined elements of narrative biography along with
the instrument of group discussion (c.f. Behnke & Meuser, 2012). The peculiarity of
this data collection method is that the interviewee does not only talk to the interviewer
but also to his or her partner. Therefore, on the one hand, the history of the partnership
can be analysed and on the other hand, the interactional dimension between the partners
becomes an empirical datum. This method allows us to reconstruct the arrangement of the
couple that was produced in situ and the narratives of that arrangement. The audio data
were transcribed and anonymised. The analysis is based on the documentary method
(c.f. Bohnsack, Pfaff, & Weller, 2008), that is, an interpretive–reconstructive method
 NORMA: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR MASCULINITY STUDIES 11

with two main interpretation processes, formulating interpretation and reflecting

interpretation followed by case-internal and cross-case comparisons.
In both families, the fathers are involved deeply in day-to-day care-taking practices and
have adjusted their professional ambitions to the needs of their families. These cases are
indicative of what media and political initiatives have labelled ‘the new father’: a father
who is actively involved in family duties. Yet they also reveal that this fatherly involvement
does not always slot into existing family practices smoothly. It clashes with tasks tradition-
ally ascribed to women/mothers and thus challenges the division of labour that sees
women/mothers responsible for familial duties and men/fathers for providing financial
security.
This difficult dynamic is particularly apparent in the Franzen couple. The two are
married, both in their early thirties and are expecting their second child. Mr Franzen
recently decided to quit his job and is planning to start his own business in the healthcare
sector. This decision was triggered by experiences with ‘family-hostile’ workplace con-
ditions. Mrs Franzen has not been working since the beginning of her pregnancy upon
her doctor’s recommendation. Therefore, both partners currently do not leave home for
work. Mrs Franzen recounts that her husband was greatly involved in rearing their first
child from day one onwards, doing everything but breastfeeding. The child has become
the central focus of their daily lives. This makes it even more surprising to come across
multiple passages in the interviews where Mr Franzen has to assert himself and defend
the way he handles the child. One example is the following excerpt where Mr Franzen
describes a typical conflict situation in the relationship:
FRm:18 This: I am a bit less patient.
FRf: (groans audibly)
FRm: And then I am accused of scolding him [the son]. When he whinges, even though
everything is fine [ … ]
FRf: Well there’s obviously something otherwise he wouldn’t whinge!
[…]
FRm: But still, I get the feeling that I could pick him up and hold him but then I think,
why are you whinging? And then this voice comes from somewhere,
FRf: (laughs) Patience is a virtue.
FRm: (laughs) This voice comes ‘Patience is a virtue’ or ‘Just pick him up’ or. And then I
sometimes say ‘I’ve picked him up’ – ‘Well then do something different’
FRf: Sing! (laughs)
FRm: And then I think, just leave me alone, this is my way of […]
FRf: But most of the time you do it. Most of the time you pick him up or you sing or you
at least stop scolding him […] and then everything’s fine! […] That’s all I want.

Mr Franzen clearly establishes that he and his wife have differing opinions about how
he responds to their discontent child as well as about what causes the child’s behaviour in
the first place. Mr Franzen assumes that there is a substantial difference between legitimate
discontent and illegitimate discontent, while his wife considers any discontent on the
child’s part to be legitimate. It is interesting to note that despite their opposing views,
Mrs Franzen manages to enforce her approach, which is encapsulated by the notion of
‘the voice’. Even though Mr Franzen lays claim to ‘his way’ of handling their child and
objects to being monitored by his wife, he ends up doing the things she tells him to do,
inherently acknowledging her expertise. There is an assumption that Mrs Franzen’s
gender and her status as ‘mother’, mean that she possesses skills and knowledge that
12 A. BUSCHMEYER AND D. LENGERSDORF

Mr Franzen, as a man, does not. In this way, gendered divides that have assumedly been
overcome get reproduced.
The Gruber couple displays a similar dynamic with Mrs Gruber enforcing her point of
view. In this case it does not play out on the practical child-rearing level but is rooted in the
husband’s attitude towards the family. Since they had their first child, Mr and Mrs Gruber
– similar to the Franzens – chose to reduce their professional engagement and split house-
hold and family duties evenly between them. With their first two children, Mr Gruber
stayed at home for an extended period and Mrs Gruber only worked part-time. At the
time of the interview the couple is expecting their third child. During the interview Mrs
Gruber discusses an aspect that bothers her about her husband: his almost excessive
focus on the family.

GRf: How can I say? Your over-the-top involvement in the family or this shepherding
attitude or constantly thinking about things
GRm: Mhm! But less in terms of a secure job or financially but rather that I like to-
GRf: No, want to be there
GRm: Exactly that
GRf: Exactly!
GRm: Wanting to be there too
GRf: Mhm
GRm: Well I think that when they’re so small, it’s such an important time somehow or a
special time. […] And it was important for me – also for myself. Because on one
hand I think it’s nice or important, on the other hand because I can learn so
much […]
GRf: Now that you said that, I remember, to do with being ‘emotional’, how important
family is or something. It can somehow get too much sometimes. Where we had
phases […] when I actually said ‘oh man, now we have to watch out that the
whole thing doesn’t backfire, so to speak’. When you focus on the family too much.
GRm: Yes.
GRf: And you only look inside. But that’s improved-!
GRm: Yes, great.
GRf: (laughs) Yes. Or I though: ‘oh dear, we have to watch out because it can ruin the
relationship’ that was it, wasn’t it? Because I mean –
GRm: Mhm
GRf: it can’t just live through the kids.

At the start of this segment Mr Gruber makes the contrast explicit between the role of a
father as breadwinner and his own view of what a father should provide; it is not enough
for him to provide for his family by having a secure job or earning money. He wants to be
present in the lives of his children as they grow up. He does not frame his dedication to his
family simply in terms of a sense of responsibility for his children but rather extracts posi-
tive feelings and the opportunity to learn new things from his role as family father. For
Mrs Gruber precisely this emotional aspect in her husband’s attitude, his devotion to
the family, calls for criticism. She openly criticises her husband in the interview in a pro-
vocative manner. It climaxes in her claim that his focus on the family can get ‘too much’,
so much so that it jeopardises their relationship. Yet, Mrs Gruber conveys that she is aware
of the perils of her husband’s attitude and – like Mrs Franzen – helps her husband to
correct his behaviour. In these ‘phases’ she makes her husband aware of the ‘too much’
and he puts her instructions into action satisfactorily (‘that’s improved’). Crucially, here
too Mr Gruber accepts his wife’s critique without comment. The fact that his wife sets
 NORMA: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR MASCULINITY STUDIES 13

the standards for his attitude towards the family is not a point of conflict, or at least not in
the interview situation. She is able to voice her views without being challenged.
As we can see from both cases, fathers do not enter neutral terrain when they want to be
involved in family life. Family life is considered a traditionally female domain where
women are in charge; they set the standards and their aptitudes act as guidelines. The
wives thus operate as legitimate supervisors of their husband’s practical skills and attitudes
as fathers. At the same time it is largely the women who stabilise and intensify the bound-
aries between ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ through their interventions. It could be argued
that they present their husbands with a social space within which they can operate
within the boundaries of what is ‘manly’. In contrast to the kindergarten-teachers, here
no alternative to the antagonistic relationship between femininities and masculinities is
established.

Theoretical discussion
Based on our considerations and empirical examples we have demonstrated that mascu-
linities are changing and particularly that key elements of what hegemonic masculinity is
are no longer clear-cut. New or alternative masculinities are emerging and striving to be
accepted and – at least in certain social fields – manage to gain this acceptance. Yet it is
clear that the divide between male and female domains does not dissolve. Rather, under
some circumstances, new differentiations emerge and are reinforced. Mothers still com-
monly consider themselves to be ‘experts’ for the well-being of their children and male
kindergarten-teachers are always just that – ‘male’ – and never simply professional tea-
chers. Their gender is relevant and diverges from the norm.
Against the backdrop of these findings we wonder what the consequences are for
debates on hegemonic masculinity as a theoretical concept. We thus join in with
current debates in the field of masculinity studies, which essentially explore how and in
what direction hegemonic masculinity is transforming. To be clear, we are not interested
in determining whether a new type of masculinity is becoming hegemonic, but rather in
how the theoretical concept of hegemonic masculinity needs to be developed in order to
account for these changes.
Based on our empirical studies and the current state of research in the area we have
found that several different forms of masculinity, which may well refer to one another
in contradictory ways, seem to exist alongside each other. Masculinities, which were not
previously considered hegemonic, are entering the fray. Male kindergarten-teachers or
active fathers are becoming more accepted and supported and encouraged by political
initiatives. In contrast, masculinities which were considered dominant up until recently,
such as the male as breadwinner, no longer remain unchallenged, at least in some contexts
(see Buschmeyer, 2008; Lengersdorf, 2013) but are being actively negotiated. Issues around
the hierarchical construction of masculinity take a backseat as the focus turns to the ques-
tion of how those masculinity/ies which are considered appropriate and sought after (both
by men and women), materialise from a whole range of possibilities for constructing
masculinity.
We demonstrated that, in light of current transformations, a horizontal logic of order-
ing masculinities, which emphasises the fluidity and flexibility of masculinity, is becoming
more relevant. While Connell’s famous concept of hegemonic masculinity posits
14 A. BUSCHMEYER AND D. LENGERSDORF

changeability and openness to historical and cultural changes, there is no clear depiction of
how such transformations might occur or how they are accounted for within the rather
static model of hegemonic masculinity. Even linguistically it is difficult to explicate
what the difference is between a type of masculinity and a power relation. In this way it
is almost impossible to convey that an alternative masculinity (at least hypothetically)
could turn into a hegemonic one. Would this new hegemonic masculinity still be con-
sidered dominant in relation to ‘the woman’?
The question of what transformations in masculinities mean for gender relations
remains as yet unanswered. We demonstrated that there are ongoing differentiations
between masculinity and femininity, which still act as directives for behaviour, even if
they seem to be blurring. Even though the relations between men and women are changing
and new configurations seem to be emerging, our empirical examples show that questions
around who is in charge of certain tasks and who has the power to define legitimate behav-
iour are still pertinent and revolve around gendered roles. This was particularly evident
because we focused on environments where it is difficult to ‘do’ masculinity based on hege-
monic expectations. The boundaries between what are considered male and female prac-
tices may be blurring, for instance with regards to childcare, but it seems to continue to be
important for both sides to live out conventional expectations of femininity (e.g. solici-
tude) and masculinity (e.g. leadership), even in situations where these stereotypes are
not necessarily called for. Conceptually, it remains unclear whether the differentiation
between femininity and masculinity indeed perpetuates existing power relations
between men and women. Empirically, we have found that particularly in the domain
of paid employment, a hegemonic relation is still in force.

Outlook
Raewyn Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity has been at the forefront of men and
masculinity studies for years. On one hand it has become the central concept applied in
this research area, on the other hand it has been criticised repeatedly for being too indefi-
niteness. This paper contributes to refining and developing the concept further, with a par-
ticular focus on the differentiation of masculinity on a vertical plane – a matter that is hard
to capture through the original concept. We demonstrated that masculinities are in flux,
that they (can) appropriate elements usually associated with the feminine, yet that they are
at the same time intent on maintaining hegemonic masculinity as a reference point.
Bringing together Connell’s and Bourdieu’s theories, as Meuser has done, is a step in the
right direction: a male habitus has incorporated practices which are more or less aligned
with hegemonic masculinity. The extent to which an alignment with hegemonic masculi-
nity exists is subject to a range of factors, such as the generation, milieu, field and capital in
and with which the ‘male games’ are or have to be played, in order for men to be acknowl-
edged as masculine. At the same time feminist researchers also criticise Bourdieu for some
points. Bourdieu for example does not see gender as a structuring element of society (he
views class as far more important), but rather as influencing ones habitus and announces
the masculine domination as a preliminary model for all other kinds of domination
(comp. Moi, 1991, p. 1035).19 With this in mind, he is not able to analyse structures
and hierarchies inside gender, for example, inside masculinities, or combinations of
gender and other structuring elements, like class. This shows in a way the openness
 NORMA: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR MASCULINITY STUDIES 15

towards gender-topics while at the same time he remains blind for the structuring effects
gender has on societies. At this point Connell is much more differentiated and can thus
analyse patriarchal structures better.
What still remains unsettled and has to be explored through further empirical work is
the question: is hegemonic masculinity transforming into a new hegemonic masculinity or
is it possible for an alternative masculinity to exist which becomes so much accepted that it
can in turn be considered to be hegemonic?

Notes
1. The German System of ‘Elterngeld’ includes a special allowance if both partners take parental
leave. This means 14 months of payment if each parent takes at least two months of parental
leave. One parent may take a maximum of 12 months of payment.
2. The campaign ‘Mehr Männer in Kitas’ was established in 2011–2013 by the federal minister
for family affairs. The aim was to increase the number of men in the profession of kinder-
garten-teachers.
3. Our paper will not question the adequacy of the concept of hegemonic masculinity per se (see
for this discussion e.g. Hearn, 2004; Hearn et al., 2012).
4. We have chosen the term, ‘kindergarten-teacher’ to translate the German word ‘Erzieher’;
however, the English word does not quite convey the specificity of this profession. In
Germany, Erzieher are state-certified educators who work in early childhood education
and care. They are trained over a three- to five-year period at vocational colleges before
they are qualified to apply for jobs in child and youth welfare centres and organisations.
There is no university level required as the word ‘teacher’ might imply.
5. See also Johansson and Ottemo (2013, p. 4):

The only relation/position that allows us to think beyond this polarized relational
drama [of power and powerlessness] is complicity. However, this position does not
allow for much resistance or change, because it is first and foremost described as a
support act for hegemony.
6. Moreover, it assumes a naturalisation and hence fixedness of this formation of masculinity.
7. See for usefulness of imprecision and indefiniteness: Davis (2008).
8. Meuser supplements Connell’s concept with a Bourdieusian approach in order to analyse
such entangled relations. See Meuser (2010, pp. 116 and below).
9. For feminist critical discussions about Bourdieu, see for example Moi (1991) and Adkins and
Skeggs (2004).
10. We would like to make explicit that we are not endorsing or supporting antifeminist dis-
courses with our rationale. All of our research is based on a deep understanding of the multi-
faceted dimensions of gender relations, which are characterised by antagonistic and
asymmetrical power relations that work in favour of women. Unfortunately, current defama-
tions and attacks against research in gender studies necessitates such an explication.
11. In Germany, up until 2011, young men were required to absolve either military or civil
service for 9–12 months.
12. The presented study was the sociological dissertation project of Anna Buschmeyer (2009–
2011, published in German with the title: ‘Zwischen Vorbild und Verdacht’ (Buschmeyer,
2013a)). It is based on narrative interviews with 10 men who work as kindergarten-teachers.
They were ethnographically observed for one day at work and later interviewed about what
was observed. In addition, four interviews with experts in the field were carried out. The
analysis of the interviews was based on the documentary method (comp. Bohnsack et al.,
2008).
13. The names of participants have been changed to protect their privacy. The excerpts in this
article have been translated from their original German form and grammatically and
16 A. BUSCHMEYER AND D. LENGERSDORF

linguistically corrected to increase clarity and make them easier to read. Brackets […] indi-
cate omissions of unnecessary segments.
14. For a detailed discussion of ‘alternative masculinity’, see also Buschmeyer (2013b, 2013c).
15. This way of ‘doing masculinity’ should be differentiated further: the construction of mascu-
linity operates on a continuum with ‘doing complicit masculinity’ on one side and ‘doing
alternative masculinity’ on the other. Future studies on men and masculinity would
benefit from a development of this concept.
16. A well-known German weekly news magazine.
17. The project ‘Gewinne und Verluste. Ambivalenzen einer stärkeren Involvierung des Vaters
im familialen Binnenraum ‘Wins and Losses. Ambivalences of a stronger involvement by
fathers in family life’ was funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) and was con-
ducted at the Technische Universität Dortmund between 2009 and 2012 under the leadership
of Michael Meuser with Cornelia Behnke and Lengersdorf. Thirty-five interviews were con-
ducted with couples from all over Germany. As well as narrative couple interviews the study
applied a documentary method to analyse the interviews. Publications: e.g. Behnke & Meuser,
2012; Lengersdorf, 2014.
18. Excerpts have again been translated from their original German form and grammatically and
linguistically corrected to increase clarity and make them easier to read. FRm = Mr Franzen;
FRf = Mrs Franzen
19. We thank one of our reviewers for these important notes to a former version of our text. For
the German Context we find also a lot of positive receptions, especially in a way that Bour-
dieu’s ‘tools’ are supposed to be very useful for gender studies, mostly symbolic power, as well
as his strong support for the self-reflexivity of researchers (Dölling & Krais, 2007, p. 16).

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Anna Buschmeyer, Dr. phil., is researcher at the Germen Youth Institute in Munich, Germany. She
is coordinating the gender research at the institute’s departments and involved in research on
gender in childhood and family sociology, fatherhood, men and masculinity studies, and qualitative
research.
Diana Lengersdorf, Dr. phil., is holding a Junior-Professorship for ‘Gender, Technology and
Organization’ at the University of Cologne. Her research interests are sociology of knowledge, soci-
ology of culture, sociology of gender relations, STS, sociology of work and organisation, and quali-
tative methods.

References
Adkins, L., & Skeggs, B. (Eds.) (2004). The sociological review monographs. Feminism after
Bourdieu. Oxford: Blackwell [u.a.].
Anderson, E. (2008). Inclusive masculinity in a fraternal setting. Men and Masculinities, 10(5),
604–620.
Anderson, E. (2011). Inclusive masculinity: The changing nature of masculinities. Routledge research
in gender and society: Vol. 22. New York, NY: Routledge.
Beasley, C. (2008). Rethinking hegemonic masculinity in a globalizing world. Men and
Masculinities, 11(1), 86–103.
Behnke, C., & Meuser, M. (2012). “Look here, mate! I’m taking paternal leave for a year” – Involved
fatherhood and images of masculinity. In M. Oechsle, U. Müller, & S. Hess (Eds.), Fatherhood in
 NORMA: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR MASCULINITY STUDIES 17

late modernity. Cultural images, social practices, structural frames (pp. 129–146). Leverkusen:
Barbara Budrich.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism. Perspective and method. Michigan: Prentice-Hall.
Bohnsack, R., Pfaff, N., & Weller, W. (2008). Qualitative analysis and documentary method in inter-
national educational research. Leverkusen: Barbara Budrich.
Bourdieu, P. (2001). Masculine domination. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Buschmeyer, A. (2008). Männlichkeitskonstruktionen Teilzeit arbeitender Väter. In N. Baur & J.
Luedtke (Eds.), Die soziale Konstruktion von Männlichkeit. Hegemoniale und marginalisierte
Männlichkeiten in Deutschland (pp. 123–140). Opladen: Budrich.
Buschmeyer, A. (2013a). Zwischen Vorbild und Verdacht. Wie Männer im Erzieherberuf
Männlichkeit konstruieren. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Buschmeyer, A. (2013b). The construction of “alternative masculinity” among men in the childcare
profession. International Review of Sociology, 23(2), 290–309.
Buschmeyer, A. (2013c). ‘Doing (alternative) masculinity’ – Wie Zuschreibungen an Männlichkeit
körpernahe Tätigkeiten von Erziehern beeinflussen. In H. Ehlers, G. Linke, N. Milewski, B.
Rudolf, & H. Trappe (Eds.), Körper - Geschlecht - Wahrnehmung. Geistes-und sozialwissenschaf-
tliche Beiträge zur Genderforschung (pp. 225–244). Münster: LIT-Verl.
Carrigan, T., Connell, R. W., & Lee, J. (1996). Ansätze zu einer neuen Soziologie der Männlichkeit.
In BauSteine Männer (Ed.), Argument-Sonderband: N.F., 246. Kritische Männerforschung. Neue
Ansätze in der Geschlechtertheorie (3rd ed., pp. 38–75). Hamburg: Argument-Verl. Originally:
Carrigan, T., Connell, B. & Lee, J. (1985). Toward a new sociology of masculinity. Theory and
Society, 14(5), 551–604.
Connell, R. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person, and sexual politics. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Connell, R. (2005). Masculinities (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Connell, R. (2006). Der gemachte Mann: Konstruktion und Krise von Männlichkeiten. (Original von
1995) (3. Aufl.). Wiesbaden: VS Verl. für Sozialwiss.
Connell, R. (2010). Im Inneren des gläsernen Turms: Die Konstruktion von Männlichkeiten im
Finanzkapital. Feministische Studien, 28(1), 8–24.
Connell, R., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept.
Gender & Society, 19(6), 829–859.
Connell, R., & Wood, J. (2005). Globalization and business masculinities. Men and Masculinities,
7(4), 347–364.
Davis, K. (2008). Intersectionality as buzzword: A sociology of science perspective on what makes a
feminist theory successful. Feminist Theory, 9(1), 67–85.
Demetriou, D. Z. (2001). Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity: A critique. Theory and
Society, 30(3), 337–361.
Der Spiegel. (2009, September 12). “Der besorgte Vater”. Retrieved from http://www.spiegel.de/
spiegel/print/d-68073968.html.
Dölling, I., & Krais, B. (2007). Pierre Bourdieus Soziologie der Praxis: ein Werkzeugkasten für die
Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung. In U. Bock, I. Dölling, & B. Krais (Eds.), Prekäre
Transformationen. Pierre Bourdieus Soziologie der Praxis und ihre Herausforderungen für die
Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung (pp. 12–37). Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag.
Eger, G. E., Hagen, H., Powalla, O., & Trinkaus, S. (2010). Praktiken der Nichtmännlichkeit –
Prekär-Werden Männlicher Herrschaft im ländlichen Brandenburg. In A. Manske & K. Pühl
(Eds.), Forum Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung: Vol. 28. Prekarisierung zwischen Anomie
und Normalisierung. Geschlechtertheoretische Bestimmungen (1st ed., pp. 186–209). Münster:
Verl. Westfälisches Dampfboot.
Gramsci, A. (1991). Gefängnishefte: Kritische Gesamtausgabe (1. Aufl.). Hamburg: Argument-Verl.
[u.a.]. English: Gramsci, A. (1971) The Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. NY: International
Publishers.
Hearn, J. (2004). From hegemonic masculinity to the hegemony of Men. Feminist Theory, 5(1),
49–72.
18 A. BUSCHMEYER AND D. LENGERSDORF

Hearn, J., Nordberg, M., Andersson, K., Balkmar, D., Gottzén, L., Klinth, R., … Sandberg, L. (2012).
Hegemonic masculinity and beyond: 40 years of research in Sweden. Men and Masculinities,
15(1), 31–55.
Johansson, T. (2011a). The construction of the new father: How middle-class men become present
fathers. International Review of Modern Sociology, 37(1), 111–126.
Johansson, T. (2011b). Fatherhood in transition: Paternity leave and changing masculinities.
Journal of Family Communication, 11(3), 165–180.
Johansson, T., & Ottemo, A. (2013). Ruptures in hegemonic masculinity: The dialectic between
ideology and utopia. Journal of Gender Studies, 0(0), 1–15.
Krabel, J., & Stuve, O. (Eds.) (2006). Männer in “Frauen-Berufen” der Pflege und Erziehung.
Opladen: Budrich.
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2012). Hegemonie und radikale Demokratie: Zur Dekonstruktion des
Marxismus (4., durchges. Aufl). Passagen Philosophie. Wien: Passagen Verlag.
Lengersdorf, D. (2011). Arbeitsalltag ordnen: Soziale Praktiken in einer Internetagentur (1. Aufl).
Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
Lengersdorf, D. (2013). “That is my way of raising the child!” The (non)acceptance of paternal
engagement in domestic sphere. In K. Kis & A. N. Ranjitsingh (Eds.), Violent and vulnerable
performances: Challenging the gender boundaries of masculinities and femininities (pp. 111–
120). Oxford: Inter-Disciplinary Press.
Lengersdorf, D. (2014). Stabilizing masculinities. Culture, Society & Masculinities, 6(2), 150–162.
Lengersdorf, D., & Meuser, M. (2010). Wandel von Arbeit – Wandel von Männlichkeiten.
Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 35(2), 89–103.
Lengersdorf, D., & Meuser, M. (2016). Involved fatherhood. Source of new gender conflicts? In I.
Crespi & E. Ruspini (Eds.), Balancing work and family in changing society: The father’s perspec-
tive (pp. 149–161). New York: Palgrave.
Meuser, M. (2006a). Geschlecht und Männlichkeit: Soziologische Theorie und kulturelle
Deutungsmuster (2., überarbeitete und aktualisierte Auflage). Wiesbaden: VS Verl. für Sozialwiss.
Meuser, M. (2006b). Hegemoniale Männlichkeit: Überlegungen zur Leitkategorie der Men’s
Studies. In B. Aulenbacher, M. Bereswill, M. Löw, M. Meuser, G. Mordt, R. Schäfer, & S.
Scholz (Eds.), Forum Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung: Vol. 19.
FrauenMännerGeschlechterforschung. State of the Art (2nd ed., pp. 160–174). Münster:
Westfälisches Dampfboot.
Meuser, M. (2007). Serious games – Competition and the homosocial construction of masculinity.
NORMA, 2(01), 38–51.
Meuser, M. (2010). Geschlecht, Macht, Männlichkeit - Strukturwandel von Erwerbsarbeit und
hegemoniale Männlichkeit. Erwägen Wissen Ethik, 21(3), 325–336.
Meuser, M., & Scholz, S. (2005). Hegemoniale Männlichkeit. Versuch einer Begriffsklärung aus
soziologischer Perspektive. In M. Dinges (Eds.), Reihe “Geschichte und Geschlechter”: Vol. 49.
Männer - Macht - Körper. Hegemoniale Männlichkeiten vom Mittelalter bis heute (pp. 211–
228). Frankfurt/Main: Campus-Verl.
Moi, T. (1991). Appropriating Bourdieu: Feminist theory and Pierre Bourdieu’s sociology of
culture. New Literary History, 22(4), 1017–1049.
Reckwitz, A. (2008). Subjekt. Einsichten. Bielefeld: Transcript-Verl.
Scholz, S. (2004). Männlichkeit erzählen: Lebensgeschichtliche Identitätskonstruktionen ostdeutscher
Männer. Münster, Westf: Verl. Westfälisches Dampfboot.
Scholz, S. (2009). Männer und Männlichkeit im Spannungsfeld zwischen Erwerbs- und
Familienarbeit. In B. Aulenbacher & A. Wetterer (Eds.), Arbeit. Perspektiven und Diagnosen
der Geschlechterforschung, (pp. 82–99). Münster: Verl. Westfäl. Dampfboot.
Scholz, S. (2012). Männlichkeitssoziologie: Studien aus den sozialen Feldern Arbeit, Politik und
Militär im vereinten Deutschland. Münster, Westf: Westfälisches Dampfboot.
Wetherell, M., & Edley, N. (1999). Negotiating hegemonic masculinity: Imaginary positions and
psycho-discursive practices. Feminism & Psychology, 9(3), 335–356.
Whitehead, S. (1999). Hegemonic masculinity revisited. Gender, Work and Organization, 6(1),
58–62.